Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspe ct of the stipulated protective order may conflict with this order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is hereby superseded with this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 TAMMY CRUZ, 9 Plaintiff(s), 10 vs. 11 WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., 12 13 Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00545-JAD-NJK ORDER 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 7), which the Court 16 approved to facilitate discovery in this case. This order reminds counsel that there is a presumption 17 of public access to judicial files and records. A party seeking to file a confidential document under 18 seal must file a motion to seal and must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. 19 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 The Court has adopted electronic filing procedures. Attorneys must file documents under 21 seal using the Court’s electronic filing procedures. See Local Rule IA 10-5. Papers filed with the 22 Court under seal must be accompanied with a concurrently-filed motion for leave to file those 23 documents under seal. See Local Rule IA 10-5(a). 24 The Court has approved the blanket protective order to facilitate discovery exchanges. But 25 there has been no showing, and the Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret 26 or confidential. The parties have not provided specific facts supported by declarations or concrete 27 examples to establish that a protective order is required to protect any specific trade secret or other 28 confidential information pursuant to Rule 26(c) or that disclosure would cause an identifiable and 1 significant harm. The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial 2 files and records, and that parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to 3 nondispositive motions must show good cause exists to overcome the presumption of public access. 4 See Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179. Parties seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 5 dispositive motions must show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption of public 6 access. Id. at 1180. All motions to seal must address the applicable standard and explain why 7 that standard has been met. The fact that a court has entered a blanket stipulated protective order 8 and that a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, 9 standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 10 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 11 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or non-party) has designated 13 a document as subject to protection pursuant to the stipulated protective order, the movant must 14 notify the opposing party (or non-party) at least seven days prior to filing the designated document. 15 The designating party must then make a good faith determination if the relevant standard for sealing 16 is met. To the extent the designating party does not believe the relevant standard for sealing can be 17 met, it shall indicate that the document may be filed publicly no later than four days after receiving 18 notice of the intended filing. To the extent the designating party believes the relevant standard for 19 sealing can be met, it shall provide a declaration supporting that assertion no later than four days 20 after receiving notice of the intended filing. The filing party shall then attach that declaration to its 21 motion to seal the designated material. If the designating party fails to provide such a declaration 22 in support of the motion to seal, the filing party shall file a motion to seal so indicating and the Court 23 may order the document filed in the public record.1 24 25 1 27 In the event of an emergency motion, the above procedures shall not apply. Instead, the movant shall file a motion to seal and the designating party shall file a declaration in support of that motion to seal within three days of its filing. If the designating party fails to timely file such a declaration, the Court may order the document filed in the public record. 28 2 26 1 IT IS ORDERED that counsel shall comply with the requirements of Local Rule IA 10-5, 2 the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172, and the procedures outlined above, with 3 respect to any documents filed under seal. To the extent any aspect of the stipulated protective order 4 may conflict with this order or Local Rule IA 10-5, that aspect of the stipulated protective order is 5 hereby superseded with this order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: March 29, 2017 8 9 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?